2015-03-18 Merit Appeals Board Minutes

Home

Merit Appeals Board March 18, 2015 may alleviate the calendar hearing conflict. Mr. Paiva's attorneys informally said they would be agreeable to returning to the consolidation. Mr. White added that the counsels have talked and the Employer would like all 14 battalion chiefs present at the hearing itself. It turns out that Mr. Paiva cannot be present on April 15 or April 16. In order to move forward with the other 13 cases, the counsels agreed to stipulate and agreed that Mr. Paiva's case can be separated so that the other 13 cases can proceed. So, that's the stipulation. He doesn't see any problem with approving the stipulation but it's open for discussion. Ms. Rabago stated that if the attorneys and Mr. White are okay with it, then she's okay—but, she hesitates to allow Mr. Paiva to do this because the other appellants may want to do so as well and the Board could end up having 14 hearings. Mr. White referenced Communication No. 15-01.1, which he drafted, concerning the deadlines and proceeded to explain the following: Chair Kuewa signed a letter on February 9, 2015 notifying the counsels what the respective deadlines would be for their submissions. Since this is a case of some magnitude, they found it necessary to put forward some deadlines. One of the deadlines would be for the pre -hearing motions and the deadline was set for March 25. He's pretty sure that at least one pre -hearing motion would be filed, which would be a "motion to quash." Chair Kuewa signed a "Subpoena duces decum" some time ago, which was issued by the battalion chiefs' attorneys, Margery Bronster and Robert Hatch. The Employer agreed to maybe produce some, but not all, of the documents. He anticipates, after speaking with the counsels, that on or before March 25, a "motion to quash" a portion of the "subpoena duces tecum" was going to be submitted to the Board. There's a deadline after that to file a "memorandum in opposition," which he anticipates the battalion chiefs attorneys are going to do. The last deadline after that would be April 9, which is the deadline to file a reply to the "memorandum in opposition." In light of what was just said, he doesn't think there would be sufficient time to hold a special meeting prior to April 15. Probably on April 15, the Board would make its decision on the "subpoena duces tecum" and the "motion to quash." The Board may deny the "motion to quash" and grant the "subpoena duces tecum" in its entirety or partially. This is what he calls a "discovery" issue. Pending the Board's decision, the counsels may ask for a continuance or postponement of the hearing. Page 4